Thomas Littlefield Marble

This case involves a divorce action (libel) filed in New Hampshire by the libelant against the libelee, following an earlier Massachusetts decree granting separate support. The court determined that while the current pleadings technically support jurisdiction due to the alleged residence period, the libelee is entitled to dismissal upon filing an appropriate plea. The core reasoning is that the issues in both proceedings are essentially identical, the Massachusetts decree remains valid with no subsequent changes, and the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution bars the libelant from asserting that the separation resulted from the libelee's fault.

family lawfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned the interpretation of a will that placed property in trust for ten years of accumulation before distribution to Ethel Redman, with her executor claiming the interest after her death. The court held that Redman’s interest vested immediately upon the testator’s death and was therefore transmissible to her estate. It rejected the “divide and pay over” rule as a canon of construction never adopted in New Hampshire and unsupported by the will’s terms, noting the absence of any gift over and the possibility of earlier payments as evidence of immediate vesting. The trustees were instructed to pay the fund to Redman’s husband as executor.

property

This case concerned a residuary clause in a will directing that a trust fund be given to a strictly Protestant charitable institution in Rochester, New Hampshire. No such institution existed in Rochester at the time of the testatrix's death. The court held that the cy pres doctrine should be applied to carry out the testatrix's general charitable intent by allowing the trustees to select a qualifying Protestant institution located elsewhere in the state. The core reasoning was that the will showed no intent for the gift to fail or revert to heirs if no local institution existed, the specific location was not paramount, and the testatrix had used reverter language elsewhere when desired; the chosen institution must still limit the funds' use to Rochester residents.

propertyreligious liberty

This case concerned a petition to annul a marriage entered into by parties below New Hampshire's statutory age of consent, although the ceremony took place outside the state. The court held that New Hampshire's superior court has jurisdiction to consider such an annulment. The core reasoning was that the state of domicile has a substantial interest in the marital status of its residents and may annul a marriage that contravenes its public policy, as expressed in the 1923 statute allowing discretionary annulment of underage marriages while protecting any children born before the decree.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant in a landlord-tenant action brought under Revised Laws chapter 413 could appeal a municipal court judgment to the Superior Court. The court held that the defendant retained the right to appeal within the two-hour window provided by chapter 413 section 20. The reasoning was that chapter 377 section 20, which makes municipal court factual findings final in larger cities, applies only to ordinary civil damage actions and not to summary proceedings to recover possession of real estate; appeals in tenant actions remain available by statute even though they are not constitutionally guaranteed.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned whether an insurance endorsement issued to cover a driver on a New Hampshire vacation trip provided liability protection when the insured was sued by his wife for injuries from an accident in New Hampshire. The court ruled for the defendants, finding coverage in effect. The core reasoning was that the parties contemplated performance of the contract in New Hampshire, the endorsement's terms and designated place of execution in New Jersey controlled, and the policy's conformity clause required compliance with New Hampshire financial responsibility law, which permits such suits between spouses, overriding any contrary rules from New York or New Jersey.

torts & liabilityfamily lawbusiness & regulatory